I'm going to jump to the last page here, and just say explicitly that people ought to chill. There is a real weird vibe these days that power imbalances in relationships make for dubious consent, which is true only in extreme cases, so extreme you don't need to make a rule for them, we all get how terrible it is.

But the building of this moray into the public conversation makes it feel weird even for people looking for traditional marriages. And look, maybe it's not your cup of tea, but if left-of-center politics has radicalized you so much that the existence of a housewife gets you riled up, you've got to take enough chill pills that a regular person would be at risk of an overdose.

Honestly, I'm cool with all manner of even extreme power imbalances – there is a Chinese couple where the wife owns 75% of the company they started together (a big early internet firm). This seems totally fine to me. On one hand, imagine how it would feel, going to work in an explicitly subordinate position every day, following the orders of your spouse or losing access to your life's work, a profound step forward for the internet and a meaningful part of your legacy. On the other hand, who cares? They agreed to the terms. It's weird, but my goal isn't to judge relationships for being weird or unfair – community policing of relationships is to make sure people don't get abused or hurt. Everything else is just gossip.

And while the Chinese entrepreneur could have demanded sex or kids in exchange for continued access to their shared project, they agreed to the power dynamic. Who else are these people supposed to love (as if you can just choose) – other minority stakeholders in emerging market internet companies? When we talk about people in power, there is no even-stevens arrangement, and that's okay. Some people want a power dynamic in their relationship! We know it won't totally ruin your life, because, again, there are weird power dynamics in traditional marriages, and while no large set of interactions anyone can opt into are all uniformily good, it isn't a life-ruining terrible choice.

Anyhow, the impetus for this is that America has currently mostly stuck to weird shaming exercises around sex and power. But everyone should have access to people in power to some extent, I think, unless they are total knobs. I enjoyed getting an email response from Seth Godin when I was in college. I try and respond to most email I get from well-meaning people.

But let's say you're really rich, and you have someone handle your meetings and external emails. Let's say you work out at an Equinox or other fancy gym normal people can't afford, eat at fancy restaurants, etc. Maybe you're open to people inviting you to coffee if they have a good reason... but I can't help but imagine someone being upset that they can't network because they can't even afford coffee. Maybe you attend a local church, but they'll get angry at a religious test to network in your industry. I cannot imagine how to live a life in a coherent way where today's complain-full, lack of resilience wouldn't find some array of problems.

I suppose that's my real point, beyond power and relationships of all types. That I can't take these complaints seriously because the level of sensitivity to "injustice" they exhibit is dysfunctional. There really would be no way of satisfying this standard, if it exists, and your life would be utterly ruined if you truly felt as powerless as the aesthetic implies.

The world still has plenty of injustice. Let's try working on that before we get upset about some nobody sending raunchy DMs.